LotR1-FotR-Seq04

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Originally Posted by Essex

Was that really his view? Or is this really a pipe dream he has? For what he actually says is: bide our time, control it? you really think saruman thinks he could control Sauron once he had the Ring back?

or could it be a way of forcing Gandalf to follow him? tell him to join with sauron and they could then bend him to their will, when he might not really think this himself? or is Saruam nvain enugh to actually believe this?

so I'm not sure HOW far away the film actually is - he still gives gandalf 'one choice' - to 'join' with sauron...... (ok perhaps 'must' is too strong.....)

Well, granted, it's pretty close to the book for THIS scene, but that's the only scene in the book that really presents Saruman as being honestly tight with Sauron. In later scenes (check Book III Chapter V "The White Rider" for example), Gandalf makes it clear that Saruman is a traitor not only to the White Council, but to Mordor. I don't think we can make a good argument that Saruman was loyal to Mordor; in fact, I believe this is made yet more explicit in "The Hunt for the Ring" in Unfinished Tales.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

But its more complex than that, &, as I said, it goes to the heart of Tolkien's philosophical vision/perspective. Staying faithful to the book is more than a matter of making sure Hobbits are half the size of humans & that Orcs are ugly, Elves beautiful, etc.

Well, Jackson didn't stay faithful to the books. Did he stay faithful to Tolkien's themes? In many respects, yes I think that he did. But I do think that it is a bit much to expect him to adhere faithfully and unwaveringly to Tolkien's philosophical persepective. I really can't see the majority of the audiences for these films coming out of the cinema saying to each other: "Well, the special effects are all very well, but I am not sure that Jackson got it right when it comes to the old Boethian/Manichean dichotomy".

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think it comes down to whether the concept of Saruman being a seperate, individual threat to the "good guys," or being a puppet/underling of Sauron would be too complicated and confusing, or not.

I don't think that it does come down to that at all. As I tried to explain in my post, it comes down to whether having Saruman, the main villain of the first two films, as an independent agent would have lessened the impact of Sauron as the main enemy overall. I think that it would have done.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I always get a little wary of an argument where filmmakers start shifting the blame onto an audience that -- without sugarcoating it -- is too dumb to get it.

That's not the argument that I am making. I certainly do not think that most viewers would be too dumb to understand the concept of an independent Saruman without getting confused. As Boro points out, it's a fairly straightforward concept that has been deployed to good effect in a number of films. The difference however is that, in those films, we get to see the main protagonists on each side plotting, talking, acting and reacting. We get to see nothing of the kind with regard to Sauron. Jacskon could have chosen to portray him as an active character, but I think that he made the right choice not to do so (and to stay faithful to the book in this regard). However, we do get to see a lot of Saruman (again, a correct choice in my view). To have Saruman as independent would have created an imbalance, in that he occupies most of the screen time (in the first two films) as the directing force of the Free Peoples' enemies, yet the audience was told at the outset that Sauron was the main enemy. The solution to addressing this imbalance was to set Saruman up as a "Sauron substitute" for the first two films.

So it's not about dumbing down the film for poor dumb audiences. It's about the balance of the film trilogy.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I like the way the book builds some mystery about what has happened to Gandalf -- he fails to show in Bree as promised, there are signs of his having been at Weather-top, etc. -- and I wonder if a similar construction might have worked here in the film.

I like this aspect too, and I think that this structure could have worked on screen. But I also believe that the structure which Jackson chose works well. They would create different tensions, but I could not say that one way would necessarily be better than the other in the context of the films. Incidentally, in the book, I think that the structure chosen for the films in this regard would not have worked nearly so well. Not quite sure why, but perhaps the answer lies in that old chestnut, the PoV.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Well, Jackson didn't stay faithful to the books. Did he stay faithful to Tolkien's themes? In many respects, yes I think that he did. But I do think that it is a bit much to expect him to adhere faithfully and unwaveringly to Tolkien's philosophical persepective. I really can't see the majority of the audiences for these films coming out of the cinema saying to each other: "Well, the special effects are all very well, but I am not sure that Jackson got it right when it comes to the old Boethian/Manichean dichotomy".
.

I'm going to be jumping far ahead in making this point - I hope you'll bear with me.

I suppose it depends on how important you feel 'Tolkien's philosophical persepective'' is. For myself, I admit, is is central. I may (or may not) agre with it, but I do think it is core to the works. Jackson appears to believe that LotR is basically an action-adventure fantasy, about Elves & Goblins, wizards, & heroes with magic swords, not realising that those things are just the 'hroa' of the story. The fea is missing. I suspect that is maybe why I find the movies visually impressive, but basically 'cold' & uninteresting. I was surprised not to be moved, for example, by Eowyn's desperate defiance of the Witch King (which in the book always moves me to tears). The movie placed all the emphasis on her killing of the WK, with her comment 'I am no man!' reducing the moment to one of silly 'feminist' sneering.

This episode in the book goes to the heart of Tolkien's 'philosophical persepective' on the nature of Good & evil, & is moving specifically because of that. Eowyn stands over her fallen uncle & defies the WK even though she is convinced she is going to die (her declaration 'I will kill you if you touch him!' makes her seem simply stupid - how the hell did she think she would do that, having no knowledge of Glorfindel's prophecy?) In the book she shouts 'I will smite you if you touch him'. Pointless defiance, & she knows it, but she stands there & defies him anyway. Shippey calls this Tolkien's 'theory of courage': doing the right thing even in hopeless situations, because it the right thing to do. There is never any point at which Eowyn realises she will kill the WK - its as much of a shock to her as it is to him!

Evil in Tolkien is a 'void', an absence, a nothingness, which can swallow the individual - open a 'void' within them. It is a temptation towards despair & fragmentation. This is, at the very least interesting, & not something that I have seen explored in mainstream movies. I'm moved by Eowyn's defiance when I read the books, because, at the end she refuses to be broken & swallowed up. She defies the chaos & nothingness that threatens to swallow her & all she loves. In the movie, all I see is a sub-James Bond moment, where the villain is despatched with a snappy wisecrack & bullet to the head, followed by his escape craft blowing up.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

This is, at the very least interesting, & not something that I have seen explored in mainstream movies.

There may well be good reason for that ...

I accept that there are points to be made about the Eowyn/Witch-King scene, when we get to that. But I do feel that expecting Jackson to explore in any detail theories concerning the nature of evil in a film of this nature is expecting rather too much from him. For better or for worse (and I make no comment on that for now), it is just not something that the majority of his intended audience would be expecting from the film.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But I do feel that expecting Jackson to explore in any detail theories concerning the nature of evil in a film of this nature is expecting rather too much from him. For better or for worse (and I make no comment on that for now), it is just not something that the majority of his intended audience would be expecting from the film.

Good thing Tolkien wasn't as obsessed with giving his 'audience' only 'what they expected', then, or we'd just have gotten a sequel to TH: another whimsical children's book, no LotR, no Sil, & no LotR movies either, for that matter.

Still, Tolkien was an artist & followed his muse, Jackson seems to have followed the audience & to have given us very little beyond stereotypically pretty pictures & a deal of gruesome imagery.

Apart from what he lifted (inaccurately for the most part) from Tolkien, did anyone actually learn anything from watching Jackson's adaptation - & before you say that wasn't what the movies were about, could anyone have learnt anything from them - was there anything to learn?

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course Jackson and Tolkien were working with different aims and motives and coming from different directions. I quite willing to accept that. But I don't accept that this invalidates Jackson's acheivement.

Originally Posted by davem

Still, Tolkien was an artist & followed his muse, Jackson seems to have followed the audience & to have given us very little beyond stereotypically pretty pictures & a deal of gruesome imagery.

Jackson is an artist, in his own way. Admittedly a very different type of artist to Tolkien, but an artist nonetheless. And he provided me (and, it would seem, many others) with a great deal of enjoyment. I expected very little else and, thus, was satisfied. Perhaps I am just easily pleased, but I do not regret being so.